Discussion isn’t dead

Par Dan Delmar
le 29 mai 2008

It’s hard to find good
conversation these days. Who has time to talk about important issues in our
communities when we’re drained at the end of the day from working longer hours
for less pay? Kids, bills, chores…and American Idol is on, too.

For the last five
years, Eric Abitbol has been dragging people out of the house and into Montreal
cafés to, well, talk. University of the Streets Café, the organization he
founded with help from Concordia University, holds intimate public discussions
on a wide range of issues around the city. Unlike a typical lecture or Q&A,
the Cafés have little structure and allow participants to openly express themselves
when and how they wish.

“It’s the
development of a community of people that challenge the dominant ideology and
logic,” Abitbol said, at the fifth season’s 38th and final event earlier this
month. “It’s an articulation of what we already know: A conversation is taking
a certain risk, being adventurous, re-evaluating our thinking…to imagine who we
are as individuals within a society.”

The last
discussion focused on the broad theme of community conversations was held at
Café Sarajevo on St-Laurent Blvd., in Little Italy. The group tries to spread
out the events all around Montreal to encourage citizens of different
background to attend. Fewer than 20 people showed up, but it’s hard to imagine
having a truly enlightening conversation in two hours with many more
participants. Publicizing these events and attracting a larger crowd may,
ironically, hinder the quality of future gatherings.

The amateur
philosophers were students, young professionals, mothers, businesspeople,
retirees; the common thread was the frustration of not being able to express
themselves in public more often.

“Sometimes we
really don’t know what we think until we get the chance to express it,” said
William, a middle-aged businessman in need of a soapbox. Later on that
evening, he told a vaguely-worded story about his supposed success in
convincing a major corporation to rethink some project; it was all quite
nebulous.

With all its
benefits, one drawback is that people like William can be totally anonymous if
they so choose. It’s a very tolerant atmosphere, free of judgement; a sort of
parallel liberal universe where debaters can feel at ease making asses of
themselves.

Teresa Tropea, a
young accountant, hesitated on a couple of occasions, trying to gauge the
audience’s reaction to her opinions. She seemed concerned they wouldn’t quite
get it.

It’s great to
have these discussions, “but what’s the next step? How do we solve these
problems?” she asked. At the end of these evenings, she asks herself if
anything was accomplished. After an exchange with other participants, she
conceded that just having a quality conversation with a vibrant group of
concerned citizens was all the payback she would need.